AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 515
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trasound machines, X-Ray machines, CT Scan and Magnetic Resonance Imaging system etc., through Air Cargo Complex (ACC), Mumbai and for this purpose, have filed various Bills of Entry (B/Es) periodically during the disputed period from December 2018 to February 2021, by classifying the "LCD HB Colour Monitors" under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8528. The appellants have self-assessed the customs duty payable thereon by claiming the effective rate of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) payable @ 18%, as applicable to 'computer monitor' under Serial Nos. 383C & 384 of Schedule- III to Notification No. 01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017. 2.3 During the post clearance audit of the import transactions of the appellants, the department had objected to the classification/categorization of imported monitors adopted by the appellants for payment of IGST at the rate of 18%, under Serial Nos. 383C & 384 of Schedule-III, as against the claim of the department that applicable rate is of 28%, under entry in serial No. 154 of Schedule-IV, of the notification dated 28.06.2017, on the ground that the impugned goods are 'other' monitors which are designed to be used with medical e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 'additional evidence' in terms of Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, and therefore, the matter was required to be remanded back to the original authority, inasmuch the phrase documentary/additional documentary evidence does not include the decision of the Court/Tribunal. On this submission, he had relied upon the judgements of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Sony India Private Limited Vs. Union of India - 2022 (379) E.L.T. 588 (Telangana) and Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Devkinandan J Gupta Metals LLP Vs. Union of India - 2025-TIOL-1238-HC. 3.2 Learned Advocate also stated that the appellants have fulfilled the requirement of the concessional rate of IGST under serial No.383C/384 of the Notification No. 01/2017-IT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017, inasmuch as the imported monitors are classifiable under sub-heading 8528 52 and are of screen size not exceeding 32 inches; further, these are not just capable of being directly connected to and designed for use with Automatic Data Processing (ADP) machines but were, in fact, connected to the ADP machines/computers; which are in fact connected to the medical equipment such as MRI machines, CT scanne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e matter for fresh adjudication by the original authority, in terms of Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982. The relevant portion of the findings in the impugned orders, which are identically worded, are as follows: "8. As it is a case of dispute related to applicability of Notification No.01/2017 dated 28.06.2017 at Sr. No. 154 of Schedule-IV or Sr. Nos. 383C and 384 of Schedule-III of the said Notification, the admissibility of any particular Serial No. and a particular Schedule of the said Notification have to (be) decided based on exact description (including use and function thereof) of the subject goods........In this connection, it is to put forth that the impugned order is dated 15.06.2023/18.11.2024 and the abovesaid Order of the CESTAT is dated 18.11.2024. Therefore, it is clear that the Adjudicating Authority did not have an opportunity to consider the impact of the Order dated 18.11.2024 on the CESTAT on the assessment and incidental consequence in respect o the impugned goods. In the light of the abovesaid Order dated 18.11.2024 of the CESTAT, which is an additional evidence in terms of Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 for consideration by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of Section 138B of the Customs Act, 1962, providing relevancy of the statement, mandates that for any statement made and signed by a person before any Gazetted officer of customs, during the course of any inquiry or proceeding under this Act, shall be taken as relevant, for the purpose of proving, in any prosecution for an offence under the Act of 1962, when certain conditions are fulfilled as stated therein. Further, under Section 149 ibid, bill of entry or a shipping bill or bill of export have been specified as the documents presented in the customs house which could be considered for amendment. There is no definition provided under the said Act of 1962 for document of 'evidence' or 'additional evidence'. Therefore, reference is placed on the legal provisions in the General Clauses Act, 1897 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 providing the meaning of such terms for appreciation of the finding given by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned orders. The relevant extracts are quoted below: General Clauses Act, 1897 "Section 2 (18): "document" shall include any matter written, expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iated by the Supreme Court is, in fact, the law from inception. The doctrine of prospective overruling which is a feature of American jurisprudence is an exception to the normal principle of law, was imported and applied for the first time in L.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab [AIR 1967 SC 1643] .... It is for this Court to indicate as to whether the decision in question will operate prospectively. In other words, there shall be no prospective overruling, unless it is so indicated in the particular decision. It is not open to be held that the decision in a particular case will be prospective in its application by application of the doctrine of prospective overruling. The doctrine of binding precedent helps in promoting certainty and consistency in judicial decisions and enables an organic development of the law besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequences of transactions forming part of the daily affairs." (Emphasis Supplied) 42. That apart, in our opinion, the term "documentary evidence" used in Section 149, in the context of amendment to BoEs or like documents, cannot include decisions of Courts." DEVKINANDAN J GUPTA METALS LLP Vs UNION OF INDI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 14.07.2024. However, a detailed order of the Tribunal dated 18.11.2024 examining classification declared by the appellants under CTH 8528 5200 and the revised classification claimed by the Department under CTH 8528 5900 was available with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the said order had conclusively decided that the appropriate IGST payable on such goods is @ 18% ad valorem in terms of entry at serial No. 154 of the Schedule-IV of Notification No.01/2017-IT(Rate) dated 28.06.2017. Therefore, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have decided the matter on merits in following the judicial precedent set by this Tribunal, which is binding on him so as to foster judicial discipline and in the interest of justice. Further, even if the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is apprehensive of the outcome of the appeal preferred by the department, by having knowledge of the fact that the department had gone on appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Philips India Limited (supra), he should have decided the case by following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kamalakshi ....